As Napster continues to take it in the teeth from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the San Francisco 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling this week that will keep the popular file-swapping music service offline until it rids its service of all copyright-protected material.

In what appears to be a smidge inconsistent, the same ruling was set in place by U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in March 2001 when it was determined that Napster was not able to block 100 percent of the copyright songs on its service from being accessed. But that ruling was then blocked in July by the same appeals court that issued the overturn this week.

Judge Patel will continue to oversee the lawsuit filed on behalf of the RIAA that charges Napster with violating copyright laws by providing users with the technology to download and swap copyrighted musical properties for free.

From July until now, the Redwood City, Calif.-based company has been technically free to do as it pleased, on a very limited scale, but instead went to work on beta testing a paid version of its online music service to rival subscription services Pressplay, MusicNet, and Listen.com that currently hold licensing agreements with the five major members of the RIAA.

Napster trial tested its new subscription service in January of this year with 20,000 perspective users willing to pay the monthly $5 to $10 fee for unlimited downloads. The beta test drew on a catalog of 110 tracks, mostly provided by independent record labels, but was conspicuously absent of any tracks belonging to the five major record labels currently in litigation with the file-swapping service.

In February 2001, Napster reportedly offered members of the RIAA $1 billion to settle the case if they would license their catalogs to Napster's service, but the RIAA rejected the offer.

In a surprising turnaround earlier this year, Judge Patel gave Napster the opportunity to challenge its litigators by requiring the five major record labels to prove their ownership of the very material Napster is being accused of stealing. Judge Patel also pointed the finger at the Big Five by suggesting that they may have violated antitrust law violation by creating their own online music services Pressplay, MusicNet and Listen.com.

A status conference hearing has been scheduled for March 27 to set the ground rules for gathering evidence that will examine whether of not the RIAA has violated these laws.

In the meantime, Napster has been forced to trim 10 percent of its staff under the crushing weight of legal bills and falling revenue.

Representatives for Napster were not available for comment.

Question: is anybody anywhere still using Napster???

Probably not, but I'm glad that they're still fighting. It's a matter of principle. The thing about the big 5 now having to prove ownership is a welcome twist in the plot.

not about napster (like i still give a rat's ass about them).
just wanted to say i miss joe's daily column.

10% of staff=1 guy ?

Usually, having what's known as first-mover advantage is a good thing. It worked for AOL, it worked for Microsoft, and for a time, it worked for Napster. Unfortunately, the record companies being what they are (read: stubborn, uncooperative), being the first-mover was the death of Napster. I agree with Cryxan. I'm glad they continue to fight. It is a matter of principle. In the unlikely event that Napster wins the case, they won't have near the number of users they once had, but they'll go down in digital music history...as the "David" who crushed the "Goliath". Good luck Napster

i liked napster and all, but if they do come back, but charge a fee and have limited tracks available, who is going to go back to them when there's so many other programs that are FREE and have unlimited tracks available??

"Pressplay, MusicNet, and Listen.com that currently hold licensing agreements with the five major members of the RIAA."

combined they have all 5, but no one of those 3 services has a license from all 5 major labels. pressplay has 2, musicnet has a different 2, and listen.com has streaming licenses (very different from the pressplay/musicnet/napster license) from 3 or 4.

judge patel has also granted napster 10 months of discovery regarding possible copyright misuse and anti-trust violations on the part of the 'big 5.'

that's more time then napster asker her for, and that is a very good thing.

To Frawster's comment: First mover's are the pioneers that usually take the arrows in the back for those who will later learn from their mistakes.

Napster was poorly planned. As soon as the company grew beyond the dormroom, they should have realized that they had to change their architecture and business model or get blasted.

uncle l.

"To Frawster's comment: First mover's are the pioneers that usually take the arrows in the back for those who will later learn from their mistakes."

Well put.

Whats Napster? Just joking well i think we all know the obvious the old napster is gone forever. The question we have to ask is when will violating copyright laws by providing users with the technology to download and swap copyrighted properties for free. be charged upon companys making gnutella clients. like companys whos name rhyme with Limewire.

What I hate about the whole situation is that they are "providing users with the technology to download and swap copyrighted musical properties for free". Damn! I can do that without Napster. The internet as a whole is doing that. I can download "copyrighted musical properties" with the same software the US government, or even the record labels use for their websites.

heh, i knew many peeps from the old napster servers and a few that i talked to who tried it said that based on the preview it sux ____(insert word here). Not only are these songs limited in number of choice for stupid fee, but the files can only be played back on pc. I don't have to say how much that hurts any service that uses these restrictions but well, horay for kazaa w/ adware

It isn't a question of copyright laws. It is, however, a test of freedom of speech.

What say I made a T-shirt with the binaries from an MP3 of some artist and started selling it? Would the RIAA come and take me away, too? It is also the same thing with the MPAA and Linux. Because DVD decoding is closed source (why, I haven't a clue) the Linux community working on development of decoding software is under fire.

Between the RIAA and the MPAA, open source communities are in trouble. Their [RIAA-MPAA] precious extortion profits make me sick.

I'm glad about this. This is why the little kids say first is the worst. It means that the feds will be too busy with napster (becausee they were the most popular) to deal with us and that means that because of napsters brave pioneering we will be free as long as they put up a fight. Take those teeth in napster because you have saved us all from the feds and we are free all thanks to you! Salutations Napster! ^_~!

So basically what you're saying is, Napster=Jesus? LoL...

fuck you

that suuuucccccckkkkkkkkkkssssssssss

Spyro- I appreciate Napster immensely, as much as the next Gnute-user, but at the same time I support law. I just don't support unjust laws- and that is what we are getting with Supreme Court adherence to Big 5 orders and complaints. Screw the Big 5! LEt true Capitolism -best man wins- reign!